To me it seems like having two perfectly good baskets, and then placing all your eggs in one of them.

Even to OEMs.. does it matter if you have a CPU and a Graphics Card instead of a CPU that has a GPU inside of it?

It's actually worse, because the user would have to replace both the CPU and GPU if one of them died, since they are in the same package.

I think that instead of creating more powerful Integrated GPUs, for the "We don't know what a graphics card is" crowd..

You should educate people that a graphics card is better.

Click to expand...

You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.

Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.

Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.

You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.

Click to expand...

Here are my thoughts:

1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
3.) I don't see how it will take less power. They just placed the GPU inside the CPU.

The ONLY positive thing that I can think of in regards to this, is that in a laptop, it's easier to work with one chip.

1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
3.) I don't see how it will take less power. They just placed the GPU inside the CPU.

The ONLY positive thing that I can think of in regards to this, is that in a laptop, it's easier to work with one chip.

I also really don't think this will fit in a tablet.

Click to expand...

Does intel/nvidia sign the front of your check ?

1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
2.) yeah so much CPU performance "seriously?" yeah its not a gapping chasm.
3.) just becuase your ignorant, doesn't make it less true.

to adress 1. Packaging, boards,chipsets,engineering, etc. All add costs. If the gpu is in the cpu package, its nearly fucking free minus the cost of the silicone.

2. sure intel beat amd in some benchmarks, ones where very shallow pipelined shitty applications don't really use the cpu to its full extent. When things get heavy on workload, those disparity become far less obvious. Please STFU

3.yes it uses less power, less vrm's, less resistors, less outboard support hardware, less traces on the board disapating power. Yeah it uses alot less power actually.

1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
2.) yeah so much CPU performance "seriously?" yeah its not a gapping chasm.
3.) just becuase your ignorant, doesn't make it less true.

to adress 1. Packaging, boards,chipsets,engineering, etc. All add costs. If the gpu is in the cpu package, its nearly fucking free minus the cost of the silicone.

2. sure intel beat amd in some benchmarks, ones where very shallow pipelined shitty applications don't really use the cpu to its full extent. When things get heavy on workload, those disparity become far less obvious. Please STFU

3.yes it uses less power, less vrm's, less resistors, less outboard support hardware, less traces on the board disapating power. Yeah it uses alot less power actually.

So to sum it up, your just ignorant.

Click to expand...

2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?

Click to expand...

Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized for a Intel processor. Also,the SB chip has hardware optimizations to boost benchmark scores that the AMD Llano does not.
In day to day usage ( which is what Llano is made for) most users don't care,they will see that the GPU runs programs better than the Intel "HD" graphics.
Check out the mobile power use here- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review-32207.html
It has better power consumption than the Intel,yet has a better GPU,and still good CPU power.

2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?

Click to expand...

Llano & sandy are not only cpu !!! They have IGP inside !!!

Τhe total force of processor and graphic card (CPU+IGP = APU) in Lianos is bigger than the total force of processor and graphic card (igp) in sandy!!!! This is the correct comparison !!